There Will Be Blood

6

JamieH.Jan 7, 2008

Without Daniel-Day Lewis this movie would be pretty forgetable. One great acting performance can't catapult this movie to greatness surely. Plot, great story lines, dialogue is what makes for great cinema. There are some wonderful Without Daniel-Day Lewis this movie would be pretty forgetable. One great acting performance can't catapult this movie to greatness surely. Plot, great story lines, dialogue is what makes for great cinema. There are some wonderful scenes and acting but the movie is too slow and plodding. Was hoping for so much more.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JeffLApr 19, 2008

The opening was good and then it was down hill from there. I was having a hard time staying awake during this movie. Daniel Day-Lewis's character tended to jump around a lot leaving his character a little hollow and shallow. Nothing The opening was good and then it was down hill from there. I was having a hard time staying awake during this movie. Daniel Day-Lewis's character tended to jump around a lot leaving his character a little hollow and shallow. Nothing really happens in the middle of the movie. The preacher character is just weird and actually steals some of the craziness from Daniel Day-Lewis's character. I don't plan on watching this movie again. It is no where near Unforgiven or Crash's power.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

SteveL.Jul 20, 2008

I was disappointed in this movie. It's theme was about a violent, mean, miserable, disturbed man. I saw no redeeming value in it. It was dark and depressing. Great acting. Crummy story line.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

FoogRMar 23, 2009

This movie had some outstanding moments and some very well designed dialogue. Unfortunately, the story and conclusion truly leave something to be desired, the main character, Danial Plainview, doesn't develop grow or shrink over the This movie had some outstanding moments and some very well designed dialogue. Unfortunately, the story and conclusion truly leave something to be desired, the main character, Danial Plainview, doesn't develop grow or shrink over the course of the movie, and doesn't change much at all; however, Daniel Day Lewis performs outstandingly, which may bother or confuse some because of the odd contrast. The score will annoy some, but it is actually a brilliant work with a Bela Barok style that will disturb and intrigue if studied. Overall, the movie was good quality, but the plot and characters were weak if not aggravating.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JoshG.Dec 25, 2007

I've been a P.T. Anderson fan for a long time. I put up with his "how-do-I-end-this-tale" shenanigans 'cuz he's a fine craftsman and wonderfully observational when it comes to character. "There Will Be Blood" (much like I've been a P.T. Anderson fan for a long time. I put up with his "how-do-I-end-this-tale" shenanigans 'cuz he's a fine craftsman and wonderfully observational when it comes to character. "There Will Be Blood" (much like "Magnolia") suffers from the former, and benefits from the latter. Unfortunately the character is not likable, and since there is essentially no ending, the whole trip feels pointless. The ONE thing this movie has going for it is Daniel Day-Lewis. He is nothing short of phenomenal. That said, this film is in no way worthy of the mutterings that have been floating out of cinematic circles comparing it to "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather." If this isn't the hype machine at work, I don't know what is. NO ONE is going to go see this movie. It's overly long, visually uninspiring, and ultimately incomplete. I couldn't help thinking that Mr. Anderson was giving us a glimpse into his own persona in the character of Daniel Plainview. No one chooses the hand their dealt, but some folks make the best of it. And some of those folks rise to the top. And some of THOSE folks become so self-centered and infatuated that they completely lose sight of the world around them. Those types of people tend to alienate even their closest allies and never hesitate to destroy their adversaries -- all in an effort to create something so entirely self indulgent, it becomes laughable. "Their Will Be Blood" is not unwatchable. Day-Lewis' performance alone is worth the price of admission, and I'd have gladly sat through two more hours of this miserable tale just to see him chew up the scenery. But a great performance does not a great film make. And in this case, it doesn't even make for a very GOOD film. This is auteuristic masturbation almost on par with Vinent Gallo's "Brown Bunny." The once sensational Anderson has clearly become his Daniel Plainview. I suppose in that regard the film and it's place in the director's life is somewhat "Citizen Kane"-ish, but unlike the Wells-ian tour de force, "Their Will Be Blood" isn't breaking any new ground stylistically, visually or otherwise. It's too bad too, 'cuz I had really high hopes. Take Daniel Day-Lewis out of the mix and this is a 1 or 2 star review at best. Day-Lewis will likely win the Oscar, but P.T. Anderson's "genius" had absolutely nothing to do with it. If the Academy includes the writer/director in their little awards dance, I'll simply have to... Boo.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

GlenC.Dec 26, 2007

The first commentator, Josh G., is right. This emperor has no clothes. For all of its restless and oftentimes inventive camera work, There Will Be Blood is a peculiarly sterile and shallow meditation on the inevitable "war" between The first commentator, Josh G., is right. This emperor has no clothes. For all of its restless and oftentimes inventive camera work, There Will Be Blood is a peculiarly sterile and shallow meditation on the inevitable "war" between Capitalism and Fundamentalism. From its literally driven-deaf by greed innocent (H.W.) to its hypocritical and vain false prophet, the characters are little more than mouthpieces for Anderson's hollow posturing. It's all too easy to mark the parallels between the Plainviews and an equally notorious, powerful, contemporary American oil family, and I'm certain this makes at least half the reason for the film's puzzling and rapturous critical reception. But the truth is, Anderson's done much better work than this and, at least for this commentator, he takes a giant step backwards into the pedestrian mainstream. With self-conscious echoing of every major cinematic milestone from Sunrise to Sunset Boulevard, There Will Be Blood struck me not so much as a ground-breaking exercise as a pastiche tribute to American film. Daniel Day Lewis is fine, sure. But it's a performance so mannered and so calculated as to suffocate every ounce of evil spontaneity in the character. Those who don't see the film's final scene coming haven't been looking for it very hard. Paul Dano's been underappreciated here. His is the difficult role and frankly, he pulls it off with more surprises and more delicacy than Day Lewis does. One truly inspired scene: Day Lewis disowning his son, late in the film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DavidM.Dec 27, 2007

Thanks for that spolier Glen C. Really appreciated that. Moron. I did not see the film, so i gave it a 6 -- middle of the road. You're not the first person to speak of TWBB's flaws... but, you are the first person to speak about Thanks for that spolier Glen C. Really appreciated that. Moron. I did not see the film, so i gave it a 6 -- middle of the road. You're not the first person to speak of TWBB's flaws... but, you are the first person to speak about Day-Lewis' performance in a bad way. Therefore, you're probably just some faus-pretentious film student or something, wanting to go against the grain -- try putting all the film theory to use... however misguided it may be. Thanks for the spoiler GLEN!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JimboDec 29, 2007

I wouldn't go so far as to say "There Will Be Blood" isn't worth seeing, but I don't think it lives up to the hype bestowed on it by so many critics. The film is essentially two and a half hours of "one-man-show"-type I wouldn't go so far as to say "There Will Be Blood" isn't worth seeing, but I don't think it lives up to the hype bestowed on it by so many critics. The film is essentially two and a half hours of "one-man-show"-type setpieces (the one man is Daniel Day-Lewis; there are other actors in the movie, but they're not really developed except to act as foils) about the rise and fall of an amoral early-1900s oil-man. Day-Lewis is a solid actor and does his best to make each vignette interesting, but this story arc has been filmed many times before, from "The Power and The Glory" through "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather," and "There Will be Blood" brings nothing new to the formula--to me, every scene in this movie felt familiar and completely predictable.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

stevegJan 18, 2008

It's wasn't that bad a movie but it sure wasn't a 92. D.D.L. did a great acting job but the circumstance just wasn't interesting. A "maverick", "independent" oil mans rise to wealth, yay. I started to dislike the mainIt's wasn't that bad a movie but it sure wasn't a 92. D.D.L. did a great acting job but the circumstance just wasn't interesting. A "maverick", "independent" oil mans rise to wealth, yay. I started to dislike the main character once I figured out that there were no revelations or shifts in personality forthcoming and it made it even harder to watch. I had high hopes based on the ratings critics have given it and was very disappointed. The best part of the movie? "I'm done now."… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JohnGJan 19, 2008

Oh boy. My expectations were so high for this. I was extremely disappointed. The film was long, unfocused and relied to much on DDL vs, an actual story. The director relied way too much on DDL to save a film that by the end of the film it Oh boy. My expectations were so high for this. I was extremely disappointed. The film was long, unfocused and relied to much on DDL vs, an actual story. The director relied way too much on DDL to save a film that by the end of the film it was like he was parodying his own performance. Also, his cadence was similar to Hug Weaving in The Matrix to such an extent that it was distracting. The actor who played Eli was not very good. I thought the score was awesome and the cinematography was brilliant. I almost feel like the critics were afraid to give this a bad review. I also thought the same about Diving Bell and Butterfly -- reviewers were so impressed by prinicpals that all flaws were overlooked. Anyone who compares this to the Godfather is silly and emotional.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JasonJ.Feb 19, 2008

This movie could have been a 9 if it knew where to stop. The last 30 minutes (the fight on the two lane bowling alley) was something that should have been put only as an xtra on a DVD. It deserved to be a "deleted scene." The rest of the This movie could have been a 9 if it knew where to stop. The last 30 minutes (the fight on the two lane bowling alley) was something that should have been put only as an xtra on a DVD. It deserved to be a "deleted scene." The rest of the movie was quite good. The oil industry during that part of American history was interesting. No Country for Old Men, as a movie, made the same mistake. Great premise, great execution, and then a superfluous ending that makes you feel like you are wasting your time. It's like they are putting the DVD extras in with the feature presentations now. Do the studios pay more for a longer movie? Something isn't right. They are butchering the possible masterpieces of the late 00s.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JackBMay 12, 2008

It was good for the most part but just dragged on, the story became uninteresting and just plain bad at the end. I think its yet another movie where the critics thought "wow if we see this as a 10/10 we might be considered as lovers of real It was good for the most part but just dragged on, the story became uninteresting and just plain bad at the end. I think its yet another movie where the critics thought "wow if we see this as a 10/10 we might be considered as lovers of real film" when really, it should all be down to how much you enjoy it as an individual.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

mathewB.Dec 29, 2007

Great cinematography, good editing, and a fantastic score cannot make-up for the fact the the films observations are superficial at best. Day-Lewis' preformance is over-the-top and not particularly convincing. More characture than Great cinematography, good editing, and a fantastic score cannot make-up for the fact the the films observations are superficial at best. Day-Lewis' preformance is over-the-top and not particularly convincing. More characture than character, he's supposed to be from Wisconsin... with that accent... not on your life.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

SchizophreniacFeb 10, 2014

some scenes are boring. but I I need to talk about all of body, yes good film. Daniel Day Lewis carries this film on some scenes, but at the beginning of film you will see the perfect scenes.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

drone41Feb 9, 2018

One of the most amazing acting by Daniel Day-Lewis, Oscar deserved. But i can't found something so special in plot. I get the point and message, but it's too long and too much presented for me.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

DorothyV.May 5, 2008

While the acting is phenomenal, the story is incoherent and meaningless, meanspirited and cruel. There is nothing redeeming about this movie and in the end is not a great movie. It is unenduringly bleak and insofar as this is true is does While the acting is phenomenal, the story is incoherent and meaningless, meanspirited and cruel. There is nothing redeeming about this movie and in the end is not a great movie. It is unenduringly bleak and insofar as this is true is does not portray the real complexity of a character or an epoch.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

adamwJan 7, 2008

A more appropriate title would be "There Won't be a Plot". It's long and boring and I still can't figure out why it's called what it is. Critics are often fooled by long movies with good acting, but in the end, it's A more appropriate title would be "There Won't be a Plot". It's long and boring and I still can't figure out why it's called what it is. Critics are often fooled by long movies with good acting, but in the end, it's just long, boring, and pointless.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

HollyR.Feb 13, 2008

A very long movie with an odd-interesting use of music, but a storyline that just didn't make sense in the end. Not worth the 3 hours, trust me. Unless you are in love with Daniel Day Lewis who is a great actor in every movie he does, A very long movie with an odd-interesting use of music, but a storyline that just didn't make sense in the end. Not worth the 3 hours, trust me. Unless you are in love with Daniel Day Lewis who is a great actor in every movie he does, spend your 3 hours on a nap instead. As other reviewers have said, "No Country for Old Men" is a far far superior movie worthy of the critic's reviews.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

P.O.Mar 5, 2008

I am not sure about this one. I hardly ever disagree with Metacritic but this movie was pretty boring. I was just waiting for something to happen. I was impressed by the acting and the visuals were quite powerful. I thought it was a ok movie I am not sure about this one. I hardly ever disagree with Metacritic but this movie was pretty boring. I was just waiting for something to happen. I was impressed by the acting and the visuals were quite powerful. I thought it was a ok movie overall.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

LuisC.Apr 15, 2008

I don t give less than 5 because of some brilliant scenes and great acting in some parts. But 80% of the movie was boring...and in a movie of 2.5h its to much. I was expecting much more.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

JBMay 27, 2008

Mediocre at best. Great camerawork and great atmosphere, but the plot drags on... and on.... and on... 2h38m could have easily been condensed in a 1h20m movie. The music is probably the worst I have ever heard. I don't remember ever Mediocre at best. Great camerawork and great atmosphere, but the plot drags on... and on.... and on... 2h38m could have easily been condensed in a 1h20m movie. The music is probably the worst I have ever heard. I don't remember ever being bothered by a musical score, but the screeching and scratching got old really fast and did not seem to have any relation to the movie. It sounded like they ran out of money and decided to cut the music budget down to one guy with a violin and a microphone. Very forgettable movie.. Cannot believe it has a 92 score on metacritic.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

JeremyP.May 30, 2008

The only reason it gets a five is because the actors performed well. Only problem was that the story itself leaves you wanting. It's not a good thing when you can tell the whole story when trying to just explain the plot. "Bad guy The only reason it gets a five is because the actors performed well. Only problem was that the story itself leaves you wanting. It's not a good thing when you can tell the whole story when trying to just explain the plot. "Bad guy becomes oil man." That's basically the whole movie. Nothing more needs to be said. The only reason to watch it is just to find out what makes him a bad guy. There's no redeeming qualities to any of the characters. In fact, it's simply an exercise in a cynical worldview, only looking at the worst in the oil industry and religion with no counterbalance. I think that's why Hollywood ate it up. Anything that focuses on the fringe aspects of "hocus pocus" religion or posits that big business is inherently greedy and rooted in evil intentions is immediately considered Oscar material it seems, and this has both! But, as I said before, the acting was the only redeeming quality and Daniel Day Lewis was definitely deserving of his best actor nod. But it's just a shame that his great performance was shackled by such a hopeless, aimless story. Let me put it another way, the only people praising this STORY are doing so because they feel it makes them smart. These are the same people that pay $15,000 for an impressionist painting by a 5 year old.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

MarkWAug 12, 2008

I consider films to be an art form and not just mindless entertainment. Like most forms of art the satisfaction in born out of seeing/hearing something new and refreshing, something that challenges the way you think. However, originality I consider films to be an art form and not just mindless entertainment. Like most forms of art the satisfaction in born out of seeing/hearing something new and refreshing, something that challenges the way you think. However, originality doesn't guarantee a masterpiece. That's where "There Will Be Blood" fits in, original but far from the masterpiece that the film critics would have you believe. The score was hideous and totally out of place at times and the acting or perhaps the characters were totally overdone. I don't think the central story of greed was very convincing and rather looked more focused on a mans degrading sanity. To top it all off the ending was awfully contrived, it just didn't fit and was poorly done. Eli Sunday could have easily escape and that was painfully obvious. I get the sense that this is one of those cases where as soon as Hollywood produces a film that is brave the critics rave, but compare this film to some of the better lesser known independent films and it pales in comparison. You can intellectualise this film as much as you like but when it comes down to it simply it isn't that good.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful

5

JoseRJan 13, 2008

This movie was slightly more than 2.5 hours long, but felt like a seven hour film. D.D. Lewis' performance is the only thing that kept me in my seat. Paul Dano's performance was also excellent. The movie dragged on for what seamedThis movie was slightly more than 2.5 hours long, but felt like a seven hour film. D.D. Lewis' performance is the only thing that kept me in my seat. Paul Dano's performance was also excellent. The movie dragged on for what seamed like days. I found myself looking at my watch wondering how long the movie had been playing and when, if ever, it would finally end.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JoanC.Jan 22, 2008

3 out of 4 of us who saw the film were disappointed. The movie lacks character development, seems irrelevant, and I didn't really care about the characters, although DDL did a fabulous acting job.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

BbFeb 12, 2008

Highly overrated. I liked-hated it. Saw the greatness but couldn't wait for it to end, and at 2 1/2 hours it could have easily been edited without any harm to the story. Over the top acting by Day-Lewis, but I hated him in "Gangs of NY" Highly overrated. I liked-hated it. Saw the greatness but couldn't wait for it to end, and at 2 1/2 hours it could have easily been edited without any harm to the story. Over the top acting by Day-Lewis, but I hated him in "Gangs of NY" too, and for the same reasons, and used to love him. It's no "Chinatown."… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

RichR.Feb 9, 2008

Well, I haven't even seen it yet, but I know I made this comment on there when the movie came out, and that is: Daniel is totally channeling Jack Palance, so, until I actually see this, I have to say that is not too cool of a thing to Well, I haven't even seen it yet, but I know I made this comment on there when the movie came out, and that is: Daniel is totally channeling Jack Palance, so, until I actually see this, I have to say that is not too cool of a thing to do. If it is better than No Country For Old Men, I will be amazed; THAT is a great, almost perfect movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

CarlM.Apr 12, 2008

Dramatic but confusing.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

AndreNApr 19, 2008

This is one of those movies that does everything right. The acting, the music, the cinematography are all brilliant but technical excellence alone does not necessarily make for a good movie. The other ingredient - enjoyability is sorely This is one of those movies that does everything right. The acting, the music, the cinematography are all brilliant but technical excellence alone does not necessarily make for a good movie. The other ingredient - enjoyability is sorely lacking from this movie. This has got nothing to do with the dark atmosphere created in the movie - as there are many dark, but also enjoyable movies. The plot is simplistic, the dialogue is boring and there is minimal character development over the course of the storyline. Although Day-Lewis acting probably deserves the Oscar, this alone cannot save this one-dimensional movie. A big disappointment!… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

D.Jan 21, 2008

Great acting by DDL, but the story is boring. No arc, no lesson that hasn't already been told before and too long. From the very beginning you know where this is going. It's like watching the Patriots football season. PTA is really Great acting by DDL, but the story is boring. No arc, no lesson that hasn't already been told before and too long. From the very beginning you know where this is going. It's like watching the Patriots football season. PTA is really overrated.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

RonA.Feb 24, 2008

There will be hype. The most interesting part of this movie involves Plainview's having to be "born again": he's forced, by financial motives, to say he's abandoned his son, and comes to realize, against his will, that he has. There will be hype. The most interesting part of this movie involves Plainview's having to be "born again": he's forced, by financial motives, to say he's abandoned his son, and comes to realize, against his will, that he has. But little else remains, aside from the glorious cinematography. One simply doesn't care about Plainview, since he's merely a caricature, overdrawn by both the script and Daniel Day-Lewis. There's just no story here that can live up to the money and talent expended on it. The deafness of HW is merely an occasion for cruelty, and the violent end of the movie clarifies nothing. One only wonders why Eli Sunday hasn't aged a day. The great Ciaran Hinds is barely used.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JonathanC.Feb 25, 2008

What do you say about a movie that has great acting, directing, cinematography, and a good subject, but you forget about it minutes later? Guess what...you say that it's not a great movie! Compare that to No Country for Old Men, that What do you say about a movie that has great acting, directing, cinematography, and a good subject, but you forget about it minutes later? Guess what...you say that it's not a great movie! Compare that to No Country for Old Men, that gives you the willies days later. I almost feel like people like this movie because not feeling anything is supposed to be "artsy". Please! Movies are either pieces art or a good story...Great movies are both. This was only art.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

JJ.Apr 11, 2008

Drastically overhyped and paced like the bastard step child of Solarace and English Patient on qualudes. The third act is a mess that will leave you with that sense of bewilderment. Clearly a movie that chose device over substance to evoke Drastically overhyped and paced like the bastard step child of Solarace and English Patient on qualudes. The third act is a mess that will leave you with that sense of bewilderment. Clearly a movie that chose device over substance to evoke some hackneyed emotion. The score is one of many devices that I… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

JA.Jun 14, 2008

This movie is a one trick pony that quickly tires midway through. I found myself looking at my watch more than the screen. The only thing thinner than the plot are the characters. What a disappointment.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

RNMay 29, 2009

Just like every other Paul Thomas Anderson movie, this one would suck without such a big name as Daniel Day Lewis. His performance was phenomenal but lets face it, this was a movie about oil. What could be more boring than that? Maybe if Just like every other Paul Thomas Anderson movie, this one would suck without such a big name as Daniel Day Lewis. His performance was phenomenal but lets face it, this was a movie about oil. What could be more boring than that? Maybe if they did a movie about rocks. Seriously, without the charisma of Daniel Day Lewis nobody would have ever herd of this movie and it's because of him that this movie is getting such a high rating from me. If they would have put say, Nicholas Cage in this one instead this movie would tank and be a one.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful

5

SashaS.Dec 28, 2007

Good and worthy attempt but sorry, no cigar. People are constantly comparing to other, better works while missing the basic fact that if it were THAT great it wouldn't need to be compared to other, better works. Shakespeare? Please.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

SteveC.Dec 29, 2007

Great acting undermined by overblown and ultimately embarassing plot. Anothe would be epic with nothing to say and 2.5 hours to not say it in. Lewis' incredible performance is sadly wasted.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

DWillyDec 31, 2007

dThis might have been a character study... but no, it's not really, there's no revelation of character (he has no sex drive? he's pissed at the preacher as a rival for power or is it a God thing?); Daniel Day Lewis does give adThis might have been a character study... but no, it's not really, there's no revelation of character (he has no sex drive? he's pissed at the preacher as a rival for power or is it a God thing?); Daniel Day Lewis does give a bravura performance (doing the same character he did in "Gangs Of New York") but it's invulnerable and not by itself affecting; this could have been a story about the clash of ideals, or no ideals or... no, it's not that either (the preacher character disappears for maybe an hour at one point). There's a lot of lot of good cinematography and atmospherics on location along with the style of mixing big theatrical performances with realist ones (using many non-actors), but NO STORY.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

lancekozDec 22, 2012

I like to see movies artistically done, so this film didn't bother me exactly. It was just long, unfocused, and forgettable. The main character was not a real stretch in acting chops for Day-Lewis, and trivial parts were carried out forI like to see movies artistically done, so this film didn't bother me exactly. It was just long, unfocused, and forgettable. The main character was not a real stretch in acting chops for Day-Lewis, and trivial parts were carried out for absurd lengths of time. Visually and in thematic details, it DID ring of some real truths and passions, which alone would make it standout against most Hollywood fare, but unless you are dedicated to odd stuff, you will definitely find it a mediocre entertainment.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

5

ClessyJan 6, 2021

Pretentious! That's the best way to describe this movie. This is one of those films that garners so much praise because people are afraid to admit they dont get it. Here's the thing though, there's nothing here to get. It's such a surfacePretentious! That's the best way to describe this movie. This is one of those films that garners so much praise because people are afraid to admit they dont get it. Here's the thing though, there's nothing here to get. It's such a surface level movie masquerading as this masterpiece. It's showing the transitional focus of America going from a culture that over values religion to one that over values wealth and power. The performances given in the film are top notch and everyone really does a fantastic job at delivering what they're supposed to. This however, doesn't make the films plot any better. It comes off as a disjointed tale of episodes that loosy connect showing that the character has no progression. If you want to call his slip is into further anger character development then sure he "evolves" but, both the main character and ellie are the same people with the same agenda the whole movie. Don't feel bad if you're watching the film thinking "I just dont get it". The message is so blunt and ham fisted, its not you it's the poor script. "Religion is bad, Capitalism is bad". But the reality is anything without boundaries or that pushes to the unrealistic levels of extremism demonstrated in this movie are ridiculous. They're pushed so hard the characters become caricatures instead. Lastly, the movie tries so hard to harken back to 1960 in style and feel but really doesn't even compare to the classics it aspires to be. This film isn't the revolutionary piece of art is thinks it is and frankly its not fun or exciting to watch.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ExKingMay 24, 2013

this movie is too awkward with an obnoxious writing i mean i know Daniel day-lewess made an awesome performance there is no Doubt about that but the writing keep you away from the story i mean why when his son became deaf he was happy ?
whythis movie is too awkward with an obnoxious writing i mean i know Daniel day-lewess made an awesome performance there is no Doubt about that but the writing keep you away from the story i mean why when his son became deaf he was happy ?
why his son burned down the house ?
why he killed his brother ?
why he waited all these years until he told his son that he was adopted ?
why in hell he killed the monk ?
omg i felt stupid after watching this movie.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

5

MSF59Nov 29, 2020

Paul T Anderson has made many great films but this is his masterpiece. One of the best films of the past 20 years and one of the truly great performances by DDL.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Gamzguy17Aug 22, 2021

There are some juicy scenes and performances to bite into from Anderson's epic about the early 20th century western oil exploitation and father/son hardships.  However, there are too many hammy plot points which hyper-contextualize any dramaThere are some juicy scenes and performances to bite into from Anderson's epic about the early 20th century western oil exploitation and father/son hardships.  However, there are too many hammy plot points which hyper-contextualize any drama that may have been more heartfelt.  Another negative is an intrusive and heavy-handed music score which tries to instil the dread of the dynamics being told, but comes across as annoyingly repetitive with its motif.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

MarcK.Jan 7, 2008

I really wanted to like this one too. Started out OK, however, the last 30 minutes or so were ridiculous and over-the-top. I think P.T. Anderson is like Tarantino. P.T. makes the great "Boogie Nights", and while we all thought he was going I really wanted to like this one too. Started out OK, however, the last 30 minutes or so were ridiculous and over-the-top. I think P.T. Anderson is like Tarantino. P.T. makes the great "Boogie Nights", and while we all thought he was going to be a great director. I think we now realize it was just a fluke.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

jimi99Jan 4, 2008

In two words: Major Bore. If you want a film about evil abroad in the world, this film is laughably trivial compared to "No Country for Old Men," which is a masterpiece. The long takes fairly scream "epic importance!" and the central In two words: Major Bore. If you want a film about evil abroad in the world, this film is laughably trivial compared to "No Country for Old Men," which is a masterpiece. The long takes fairly scream "epic importance!" and the central conflict, between a fairly interesting ruthless oil wildcatter and a wimpy insincere evangelist, is simply not an enduring metaphor for America, the human soul, or an enjoyable time in the moviehouse. The Coen brothers are filmmakers; Paul Anderson is an auteur--in the worst sense of the word.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

AlanH.Feb 5, 2008

A cinematically well-crafted movie that pays no regards to character truth or consistency or humanity. It's plodding and pretentious. Ditto for DDL's performance.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

SeanF.Mar 16, 2008

Over the top acting kind of disguises the fact that plot is peppered with illogical scenes which make little sense. Like having one actor playing the two Henry brothers in same character. Left me wondering for the most part if the preacher Over the top acting kind of disguises the fact that plot is peppered with illogical scenes which make little sense. Like having one actor playing the two Henry brothers in same character. Left me wondering for the most part if the preacher was supposed to have two personalities. The ending was cliched ('luke I'm not your father') and complete with gratuitous violence which added nothing and detracting from the film itself. Sure the acting is good but that alone doesn't make a great film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

MarkJun 18, 2008

Only thing good about it was the acting. It was boring. I was expecting some kind of twist at the end or for the movie to rap up with some kind of moral theme, but the movie was pointless.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

NathanK.Jul 30, 2009

Boring and contrived... one of the most horrid movies i've ever seen. the best part was the credits.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

ChrisJan 21, 2008

This film has a lot going for; a high quality writer/director, a great cast, and an excellent score. Sadly, it does not amount to much. The movie moves slowly and is never very captivating. Day-Lewis gives a great performance at the This film has a lot going for; a high quality writer/director, a great cast, and an excellent score. Sadly, it does not amount to much. The movie moves slowly and is never very captivating. Day-Lewis gives a great performance at the beginning and end of the film, however, he loses focus during the middle. Paul Dano is fantastic should garner some Academy consideration. I wish this film had been more interesting, but it just a dull period piece. The film does have some interesting themes such as religion and greed, but leaves many questions unanswered. Sadly, this is a 2 hour 40 minute hike that leaves you unfulfilled.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

MichaelLFeb 3, 2008

My God, the Emperor has no clothes! What a reductionist, overwrought, overPRAISED and overLONG melodrama. All this to basically say greed is bad, whether it be embodied by capitalism or religion? Are we supposed to take away from this film My God, the Emperor has no clothes! What a reductionist, overwrought, overPRAISED and overLONG melodrama. All this to basically say greed is bad, whether it be embodied by capitalism or religion? Are we supposed to take away from this film the jarring and totally unoriginal message that the sociopaths among us may be the purest by virtue of their unshakable, unstoppable integrity? Whatever! Daniel Day Lewis, doing his best John Huston imitation, has a field day blathering away with an indistinguishable accent (from WHERE is supposed hail? No one in Wisconsin speaks with that hybrid of Queens English and Long Island Lockjaw...) until he descends into Jack Torrence madness, complete with a final line comparable to "Here's Johnny!" And Paul Dano... he evolves (or devolves) from spooky preacher to screaming ninny, and never ages a day, despite the elapse of 30 years. And THIS is the film with buckets of awards? Not nearly as interesting as "Magnolia" nor as brilliant as "Boogie Nights", if you must see this film, tank up on plenty of coffee beforehand...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

SteveS.Oct 3, 2008

Calling this a good movie is an insult to good movies. I wanted to like it, and DD Lewis is always entertaining, but let's face it - the movie is ultimately a failure.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

IverP.Feb 26, 2008

Great looking, but ultimately quite tedious and unbalanced.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

RaimondR.Feb 29, 2008

There Will Be Blood, a 2007 film directed, written, and produced by Paul Thomas Anderson (best known for his work directing and writing the Adam Sandler film Punch-Drunk Love), opened on December 26, 2007 to a limited release in New York and There Will Be Blood, a 2007 film directed, written, and produced by Paul Thomas Anderson (best known for his work directing and writing the Adam Sandler film Punch-Drunk Love), opened on December 26, 2007 to a limited release in New York and Los Angeles and then was later widely released on January 25, 2008. It follows the story of an … Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful

4

JimmusM.Mar 4, 2008

Dull, awful, pointless movie. Daniel Day-Lewis is very good at his part, as unlikeable as it was. The soundtrack is mostly jarring noise. I struggled to find one character I could identify with, or admire. Yeah, yeah, film "critics", I get Dull, awful, pointless movie. Daniel Day-Lewis is very good at his part, as unlikeable as it was. The soundtrack is mostly jarring noise. I struggled to find one character I could identify with, or admire. Yeah, yeah, film "critics", I get it - money is bad, religion is bad. Bad, like the taste this film left in my mouth after watching it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

RichardS.Apr 11, 2008

Well made movie about someone you don't like or care about. Too bad Day-Lewis can act in every way except to express pain. The editing was bad.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

JimM.Apr 22, 2008

Didn't get it. Two hours I'll never get back.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

CaptainSpauldingMay 25, 2008

To paraphrase Phil Hartman as Frank Sinatra, "What is all this crap?!" If not for the excellent acting of Daniel Day-Lewis, this movie would be horrid. If not for Mr. Day-Lewis, I'd give his a negative number if possible. A horrid movie To paraphrase Phil Hartman as Frank Sinatra, "What is all this crap?!" If not for the excellent acting of Daniel Day-Lewis, this movie would be horrid. If not for Mr. Day-Lewis, I'd give his a negative number if possible. A horrid movie and 2 hours of your life that you'll never get back! Quick advice? RENT SOMETHING ELSE!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

PeterDec 27, 2007

A self indulgent colaboration between a fine actor and and a director who obviously cannot write an engaging plot. Try to think away the suberb performance of Day Lewis and ther's no there there. The story is pedestrian and clliched - A self indulgent colaboration between a fine actor and and a director who obviously cannot write an engaging plot. Try to think away the suberb performance of Day Lewis and ther's no there there. The story is pedestrian and clliched - see Treasure of Sierra Madre or Citizen Kane. Both of the latter films had editors who knew when a scene is over long and sometimes duplicative of earlier scenes.And then there's that jarring, inappropriate score - where did that come from? Finally, can Hollywood construct a story line which doesn't always show the venality of all entrepreneurs and businesspeople and the stupidity of religion and its believers. Also, there's the film critics, next time I go to the movies I'll drink beforehand whatever they were drinking when they reviewed this one.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

RadCompanyJan 13, 2008

Another reviewer below wrote, "Anyone who doesn't rate this film highly is not terribly bright." Most people that believe There Will Be Blood is a good film are doing so to state their "Hollywood Vs. Art" status. Trust me, I don't Another reviewer below wrote, "Anyone who doesn't rate this film highly is not terribly bright." Most people that believe There Will Be Blood is a good film are doing so to state their "Hollywood Vs. Art" status. Trust me, I don't "not get it". I get it, but it's just one big empty gesture after another, just like the ubiquitous "How many in your family?" question the characters in the movie pose before every scene. The opening music is a nod to "2001" that tries to set a tone that something mysterious is happening, but there is nothing deep here, just a cliche morality with no likable characters to identify with. Haven't felt this empty after leaving the theatre in a while.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

DWDec 8, 2009

I loved this movie. I loved the photography. The character development. The realism. The premise. All for what? For nothing? Do not make a film if you do not know where the plot is going to go. The plot - goes nowhere. There will be blood? I loved this movie. I loved the photography. The character development. The realism. The premise. All for what? For nothing? Do not make a film if you do not know where the plot is going to go. The plot - goes nowhere. There will be blood? There won't be blood - at least no blood that has any meaning. If you expect to see a good man become evil you will not. If you expect to see an evil man be reformed you will not. If you expect to see an evil man get his comeuppance you will not. If you expect people to suffer terribly or prosper wonderfully, you will be mistaken in your estimation. You instead get: Daniel Day Lewis: a cranky, miserable miser... who is... a cranky miserable miser. The only person who really loses the plot in the film is the screenwriter. There is no plot. And this is why this is not a film, but a series of still of beautiful countryside. There is no plot.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

[Anonymous]Dec 23, 2007

Is there some kind of mass hallucination going on with these critics? This film is not good. The story is told excruciatingly slowly, and D Day Lewis basically reprises his Bill the Butcher role, but gives him the voice of John Huston. The Is there some kind of mass hallucination going on with these critics? This film is not good. The story is told excruciatingly slowly, and D Day Lewis basically reprises his Bill the Butcher role, but gives him the voice of John Huston. The guy playing the religious zealot is in WAY over his head, he's required to age 30 years yet in the last scene he still has adolescent acne and his voice squeaks as though his testacles are just dropping! All this nonsense about it being a big statement about religion vs money is trying to paste meaning onto a film that was lazily written. Unfortunately, Day Lewis is starting to have shark eyes which look dead and malevolent all the time, generating not much sympathy or interest within this viewer.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

Jimbo82Apr 1, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This films started off well, but once we've seen how Plainview (Day-Lewis) set up the business and his early difficulties in buying land to drill for oil that the film starts to take a nose dive. First of all, there is little to no character development we learn nothing about Plainview's work force, his son (who turns out not to be his son) is only developed very slightly towards the end. There are also a few things that don't make any sense i.e when Plainview abandons the boy on the train. He is returned back to Plainview later in the film, but where had he been? Where did they find him? How long had he been gone for? None of this is explained. I also felt the ending was over the top. I gave it 4 mainly because it started out well and Day-Lewis put in a good performance (not Oscar worthy though). I also thought the guy who played Eli put on a good performance too.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

3

cindynnevinsApr 3, 2008

No hero in movie. It was boring, long. I found it to be tedious. Waiting for something to happen. The ending was terrible. I still am not sure of the consequences of what he did. Save your money. It was over rated

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

DaveS.Jan 24, 2008

Daniel Day-Lewis awesome as usual. Most annoying sound track I have ever heard. Scenes dragged out too long.

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

mmiddleJan 29, 2008

What Michelle said. The photography is gorgeous, the actor playing the son is fine, but the storytelling is flat and careless, and Day-Lewis just extends his silly performance in "Gangs."

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

jimhJan 7, 2008

pretty boring. dreadful overacting. totally overrated. if yu want real drama see the Rumanian film 4 months 3 weeks and 2 days. if you want a film that's travelled right up its own backside check this out though.

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

FredGFeb 10, 2008

Highly overrated in my opinion. A tale of greed. I wish I hadn't seen it, because it wasn't that entertaining. The story also wasn't crisp. There was a good movie in there somewhere.

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

BetsyMFeb 2, 2008

This is one where I just don't get the great reviews, hard as I try. The movie was long and boring and had no real redeeming social qualities. I was hoping that the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis was as great as everyone says, but it This is one where I just don't get the great reviews, hard as I try. The movie was long and boring and had no real redeeming social qualities. I was hoping that the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis was as great as everyone says, but it wasn't. He just limped around and brooded. Very disappointed.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

FrankL.Feb 6, 2008

I expected much from this movie, especially after reading through critics and user-ratings in here and at other sites. To make it short i was mainly heavily disappointed on following points: 1) Music There are movies without music. There are I expected much from this movie, especially after reading through critics and user-ratings in here and at other sites. To make it short i was mainly heavily disappointed on following points: 1) Music There are movies without music. There are movies with music, where the music can transport emotions or atmosphere and suspension. But there are also cases where the film music is so elaborated, so off limits that it simply puts itself way too much in the foreground. 2) i did not read the book, but only after reading to some user comments i understood that major parts of the underlying story were not told. It created on me the impression that i was just looking on some crazy, selfish ppl doing crazy and selfish things. No real message or system critic was really formulated. Frank@germany.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

BillL.Mar 11, 2008

Terrible musical score meant to impress detracts from story and performance of Daniel Day Lewis.Not as interesting as the critics think it is. Full of bombast not epic story.

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

MattB.Apr 11, 2008

I watched this movie because it was highly acclaimed and one many awards. I was very disappointed. The character development was great, but the movie felt like 4 or 5 hours and moved very slowly. The music was awful, and, in times seemed I watched this movie because it was highly acclaimed and one many awards. I was very disappointed. The character development was great, but the movie felt like 4 or 5 hours and moved very slowly. The music was awful, and, in times seemed unnecessary.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

ELMay 4, 2008

Slow and boring, wish I'd done my ironing instead. The film lacks any interesting story line and I found myself falling asleep more than once. I must admit however, that it was exciting in comparison to; Girl with a Pearl Earring and Slow and boring, wish I'd done my ironing instead. The film lacks any interesting story line and I found myself falling asleep more than once. I must admit however, that it was exciting in comparison to; Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful

3

JoeM.May 4, 2008

I have to agree with Barbara M's review of all sound and fury coupled with slow pacing and extended melodrama. I sometimes found myself sighing over my labor to make it through to the end of this plodding film. Not to take away from I have to agree with Barbara M's review of all sound and fury coupled with slow pacing and extended melodrama. I sometimes found myself sighing over my labor to make it through to the end of this plodding film. Not to take away from Daniel Day-Lewis' effort, because he rivets you with his always incredible screen presence, but otherwise I really couldn't wait for this movie to end. I'm glad I caught it on DVD rather than pay $9 to see it at the theater.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

AlexROct 22, 2009

I started whittling in the middle of this film to stave off boredom. Yeah. It starts off well and lays a solid foundation for what could be a captivating plot. Then functionally nothing happens for like two whole hours. No discernible plot, I started whittling in the middle of this film to stave off boredom. Yeah. It starts off well and lays a solid foundation for what could be a captivating plot. Then functionally nothing happens for like two whole hours. No discernible plot, with only Day-Lewis' intense portrayal to carry the film. His performance is actually kind of squandered since they could have given him more interesting dialogue or action. But, no. Just two hours of nothing. Then the ending comes out of nowhere, spews one memorable catchphrase, and finishes on a completely ridiculous note. I understand that this is art, and the cinematography is nice, but why can't art be entertaining? Don't let this film trick you into thinking that it makes a profound statement about society or the human condition or whatever just because DDL plays a brooding, mean guy and it's really sparse and atmospheric. Without him, this movie has nothing and would easily be seen as such. There Will Be Blood is all set-up. All the pieces are in place for this to be a good film, they just forgot to write the plot.… Expand

6 of 11 users found this helpful

3

DWillyDec 30, 2007

Film should be considered an art and undertaken with high aspiration, but this is like way too many art house type movies that average folk will go see because they are fantastically reviewed and then walk out of saying, and rightly so, that Film should be considered an art and undertaken with high aspiration, but this is like way too many art house type movies that average folk will go see because they are fantastically reviewed and then walk out of saying, and rightly so, that there is something very wrong with this industry. A pretentious film school exercise doth not a legitamit movie make. It might have been a character study... but no, it's not really; even though Daniel Day Lewis gives a bravura performance, he did this "king thug" guy in "Gangs Of New York" already and it's invulnerable and not by itself affecting. It might have been a clash of ideals story... no, it's not that either (the preacher character disappears for maybe an hour at one point). I guess with a lot of good cinematography on location mixing big theatrical performances with realist ones (using many non-actors), even without a story, film nuts will think its deep.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful

3

DonnaS.Jan 19, 2008

Disappointed with the plot, but DDL was worth watching.

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

DaveBJan 26, 2008

Boring! Did anyone else not notice how DDL walked with a limp after a horrific accident, then had no limp for a time, then had the limp return?

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

DanGJan 29, 2008

Unappealing and long. "Pixote" meets "Citizen Kane". Great performance by Day-Lewis, but on what dispiriting material!

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

MattyJJan 31, 2008

Haven't looked forward to a movie so much in years. Very disappointed...I thought Anderson was going to add more life to a great but painfully long story by Upton Sinclair. Instead the director takes only the first few chapters into Haven't looked forward to a movie so much in years. Very disappointed...I thought Anderson was going to add more life to a great but painfully long story by Upton Sinclair. Instead the director takes only the first few chapters into account and somehow manages to make isaid story even longer by eliminating the socially important aspects of OIL!. Gone is the relevant stuff--Sinclair's complex look at a moral businessman's son deeply troubled by his relationship with both labor and a corrupt industry, instead turning it into a simple story of a crazy man getting crazier. DDL was perfect and is probably the only reason folks dig this the way they do. Paul Dano was amazing in Little Miss Sunshine, but that was because he didn't speak in it...in this movie he becomes a shrieking, Peter Brady squealing banshee who's representation of the parallels of revival culture in the early 20th century to that of industry is put too much on the backburner when it could've been Anderson's contribution to a storyline understated by Sinclair. And why did Anderson make Eli and Paul twins? It leaves anyone who hasn't read the book wondering if they're the same guy until the end, for no real reason. It is painfully boring for those who like movies to take them places...even harder on those who like to think about the movies they see (yay No Country!!!) And anyone who is revved up about it must just like eccentric characters who don't change (which is understandable, but useless in the grand scheme of things). I would say if you're thinking about seeing it you should YouTube Howard Dean's historic on-camera breakdown and then imagine watching that for three hours an how painful that would be..then go see diving bell and the butterfly or no country for old men...or follow the advice of the guy who put 30 Days of Night above this. Vampire flicks rule!!!… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

BarryS.Feb 16, 2008

The most over-hyped movie perhaps ever- for those of you artsie freaks who think- 'well you just dont get it" - oh i get it all right- i understand DD Lewis is a brilliant actor and that the film is beautifully shot- but thats as far as The most over-hyped movie perhaps ever- for those of you artsie freaks who think- 'well you just dont get it" - oh i get it all right- i understand DD Lewis is a brilliant actor and that the film is beautifully shot- but thats as far as anyone could go with this film- Paul Thomas Anderson needs to stay behind the camera- period. His screenplays are tired and not clever- no happy ending here and either hopefully for PTA career.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

JohnS.Feb 8, 2008

Great period settings and geographical scenes and clothing. Horrible story line with unredeeming qualities! Magnificent performance by Daniel Day Lewis. This started out great and then left me in a pool of black oil. Why would such a great Great period settings and geographical scenes and clothing. Horrible story line with unredeeming qualities! Magnificent performance by Daniel Day Lewis. This started out great and then left me in a pool of black oil. Why would such a great actor let this happen? Was a short cut taken and the substance left on the cutting room floor? Daniel Plainfield the character shows compassion and love in the beginning then sours into a pool of drunken insanity. Very long and boring, Daniel Day Lewis is great but the writer must of killed himself half way through! Or went on strike? Did this movie get made on the cutting room floor? Daniel Day Lewis needs to pick better movies to be in.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful

3

RobertMAug 25, 2009

I'm still trying to figure out what was so great about this movie!! The first fifteen minutes were addicting since it had no words. I found that compelling, but the movie failed to make me care about an ambitious, cold hearted oil I'm still trying to figure out what was so great about this movie!! The first fifteen minutes were addicting since it had no words. I found that compelling, but the movie failed to make me care about an ambitious, cold hearted oil tycoon! I was upset that he didn't die or get killed! This was 3 hours of a snorefest!… Expand

4 of 7 users found this helpful

3

MchelleJan 28, 2008

This movie does not reflect the critics comments. It's 2.5 hours of Daniel Day-Lewis reprising his role in "The Gangs of New York". His acting seems affected and the plot goes no where. Waste of an evening. Avoid this film.

2 of 2 users found this helpful

3

JoeyHFeb 15, 2008

It just wasn't that good. I have a lot of respect for PT Anderson, Paul Dano, and Daniel-Day Lewis. Especially Daniel. Unfortunately, great acting doesn't make a movie great. Kind of like how having Lebron doesn't make the It just wasn't that good. I have a lot of respect for PT Anderson, Paul Dano, and Daniel-Day Lewis. Especially Daniel. Unfortunately, great acting doesn't make a movie great. Kind of like how having Lebron doesn't make the Cavs great. I guess rating art is kind of pointless, but I really wouldn't tell anyone to go see this.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful

3

TheoSFeb 24, 2008

Male movie. Hard, boring, easy message served in 3 Hours. Would have made a good short-movie. 30 minutes max. Aggressive music, anoying at best. (And i am actually musician (classic) but that combination did not worked out for me.

1 of 2 users found this helpful

3

CuthrinK.Aug 29, 2009

Quite overrated but the looks of it. Excellent acting by most of the actors, but the story is like an acid-time-travel trip to the olden times.

1 of 3 users found this helpful

3

EricS.Dec 29, 2007

Way too long - a good 1930s director would have done a better, stronger job with the story in 90 minutes, or less. The music was awful - intrusive and used far too much. At times it was almost laughable. Daniel Day Lewis was good, sort of, Way too long - a good 1930s director would have done a better, stronger job with the story in 90 minutes, or less. The music was awful - intrusive and used far too much. At times it was almost laughable. Daniel Day Lewis was good, sort of, but frankly, a nasty drunk isn't all that tough a role. There was far too much reliance on tight closeups of people's faces to try and wring emotion out of the audience - a cheap trick that was overused to the point of not working. Boring!… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

3

Trev29Mar 31, 2012

No matter how superb that acting was and the overall quality of the film.....it is wayyyyyyyyyy too long and pointless. It was the farthest thing from a gripping movie. There were some very good scenes and music, but come on....so boring.

1 of 8 users found this helpful17

All this user's reviews

3

YoursTrulyNov 11, 2012

The acting is superb and Daniel-Day Lewis is captivating as always. But I had to drag myself through this one. It has it's moments, but overall There Will Be Blood is a like a never ending desert highway riddled with pot holes andThe acting is superb and Daniel-Day Lewis is captivating as always. But I had to drag myself through this one. It has it's moments, but overall There Will Be Blood is a like a never ending desert highway riddled with pot holes and tumbleweeds. Long winded, dry and not an inkling of refuge in sight. If only they would have whittled it down to a neat and simple package, this could have been great. But as it stands, snooze fest.… Expand

1 of 9 users found this helpful18

All this user's reviews

3

marceliniJan 10, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Tenía muchas expectativas por la puntuación, pero salí defraudado completamente. Cuando había transcurrido una hra y 15 minutos, decidi apagar el televisor. En una sola palabra ABURRIDO.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

SpacemanGaryFeb 26, 2020

Horribly overacted and boring. More like "there won't be blood" (until like the last minute). The only saving grace is an appearance by my favorite podcaster, Paul F. Tompkins. I bet DDL was furious to be upstaged that day. Stay away from this movie!

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

tinah.Jan 5, 2008

Totally unlikeable character, never learned anything . Very male film. I didn't like it

2 of 2 users found this helpful

2

AmberC.Apr 7, 2008

I had heard good things about this movie, and I had been so psyched to go and see it...which may be part of why it ended up being such a disappointment. The music in the opening scene put me on the edge of my seat, and I spent the rest of I had heard good things about this movie, and I had been so psyched to go and see it...which may be part of why it ended up being such a disappointment. The music in the opening scene put me on the edge of my seat, and I spent the rest of the movie holding my breath for a dramatic and shocking event that would never happen. The movie dragged on and on, and I couldn't shake off the feeling that nothing substantial or relevant was happening. At first I did think the conflict between Daniel and Eli held a lot of promise, and I guess I kind of expected the movie to focus on this tension and build it up a little more--but here again the movie fell short, and the ending death scene blended in with the rest of the movie about as well as oil blends with water. It felt awkward and out of place. To make things worse, in my eyes at least, there was never anything likeable about DDL's character. I saw him take the orphaned baby from the scene of the mining accident, and when the movie immediately flashes to 9 years later and Daniel happens to be accompanied by a boy who looks about 9 or 10 years old, I put two and two together and suspected it was the same kid. Some have suggested that the son was the only character that Daniel cared about at all, but I question whether he even cared about the boy. Daniel refers to his son as a "sweet face" that helps him get his way in business deals. Then, when someone asks Daniel where his wife is, he gives a shifty look and replies that she "died in childbirth", and presto! The charismatic businessman is transformed into a lying scumbag. I'm guessing that explains why I wasn't at all surprised when Daniel sat H.W. down at his desk years later and finally told him that (gasp!) he's not actually his father. I get the feeling that this was supposed to be a very dramatic, climactic scene, but it left me cold because I'd been practically waiting for it the entire movie. I think the movie was supposed to center around the "transformation" of DDL's character, but I didn't really see much of a transformation, except in the end when he suddenly becomes psychotic, or maybe just reveals that part of his personality. It's hard to tell, because Daniel is very unapproachable as a character; tough to understand or relate to at all, and even tougher to like. The acting itself was still decent, but the character development was iffy at best. All in all, not recommended.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful

2

MikeSJan 5, 2010

Started off boring and progressively got worse.

2 of 3 users found this helpful

2

StephenJan 1, 2008

Half-baked. I was fairly engrossed through the first 2/3 of the film, then I started to realize the entire film was heading nowhere and saying nothing. A string of disjointed episodes connecting several almost over-the-top scenes of Half-baked. I was fairly engrossed through the first 2/3 of the film, then I started to realize the entire film was heading nowhere and saying nothing. A string of disjointed episodes connecting several almost over-the-top scenes of DDR's mad rages without any real groundwork laid to explain or justify them. I have no idea what the critics who rated this so highly were thinking.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful

2

KeithD.Jan 12, 2008

Long and Boring, 1 good actor, nothing more, I really didn't even think there was that much for DDL to do anything with. You just keep waiting and waiting for something to develop and nothing does.

2 of 3 users found this helpful

2

JimIFeb 14, 2008

This movie moved slower than my grandma Helen, and she's been dead for 10 years! Not to take away from Daniel's performance or the guy who played the preacher, but come on, the first 15 minutes of the film I thought we reverted This movie moved slower than my grandma Helen, and she's been dead for 10 years! Not to take away from Daniel's performance or the guy who played the preacher, but come on, the first 15 minutes of the film I thought we reverted back to silent films. I get the point the movie was making, but cut maybe an hour off this movie and it would have been MUCH better. I was so bored with Daniels character mid way through the movie, and the sound track was grating on my nerves so badly, I had to walk out.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

BibliotechaSanchezFeb 15, 2008

Shit movie, only because it bashes Christians, of which Daniel Day Lewis isn't. I'm not saying that the Church portrayed in this movie was a legit church, not my church. Daniel Day Lewis was basically Mocking Christians in general Shit movie, only because it bashes Christians, of which Daniel Day Lewis isn't. I'm not saying that the Church portrayed in this movie was a legit church, not my church. Daniel Day Lewis was basically Mocking Christians in general in this movie. If the movie hadn't shown blatant blasphemy, then I would have given it 9 stars. As it is though, There Will Be Blood gets a big fat 2!… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful

2

WayneW.Feb 2, 2008

Guess what "Professional Critics"...open your eyes..the emperor has no clothes. I spoke with 6 other people after the movie and all agreed the movie sucked..too long..one dimensional..absurd storyline...with a pathetically uncreative ending. Guess what "Professional Critics"...open your eyes..the emperor has no clothes. I spoke with 6 other people after the movie and all agreed the movie sucked..too long..one dimensional..absurd storyline...with a pathetically uncreative ending. There Will Be Bullsh--.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful

There Will Be Blood

User Reviews